PFT: Teams Revise Draft Trade Chart

[HairOnFire]

And nothing in the proposed trade chart removes any options. It just changes the price tag.

Bull. I've now given three examples of potential trades that were not only possible using the old trade value chart, but advantagous to both teams involved, yet they would no longer be possible using the newly proposed trade value chart. And they're no longer realistic options precisely because the new value chart changes the price tag so dramatically, and for reasons nobody can explain adequately. And don't think I couldn't provide you with countless other examples if I felt the need.

Quite frankly, you seem willing to admit the proposed change in the value chart related to the 100-point bump drastically impacts a teams ability to make trades in the latter part of the 1st round, and would do so for exactly the same reasons that currently prevent teams teams drafting in the Top Ten from moving down. So where's the logic in adopting a new trade value chart that attempts to fix one problem at the top of the 1st round but then creates an identical problem at the end of the round?

Finally, I find it amusing how quickly you dismiss the matter of needlessly restricting a teams ability to move down. Afterall, if I had a dollar for everytime you've written "trade down" in your posts I'd be a very wealthy man.

[HoosierCat]

So where's the logic in adopting a new trade value chart that attempts to fix one problem at the top of the 1st round but then creates an identical problem at the end of the round?

Because, as COB correctly laid out earlier, the new chart is specifically designed to enable more movement at the top of round one. And clearly, if multiple teams are indeed considering adopting this new chart, they are willing to take the trade-off it implies at the bottom of round one. And that tells me they don't consider your objections at the bottom of the round sufficient to offset the benefits it brings at the top. Whether all the owner eventually agree, or whether there's further tweaking to be done, remains to be seen.

And nothing in the proposed trade chart removes any options. It just changes the price tag.

Bull. I've now given three examples of potential trades that were not only possible using the old trade value chart, but advantagous to both teams involved, yet they would no longer be possible using the newly proposed trade value chart.

Blah, blah, blah. And I can turn around an give you three example of potential trades at the top of round one that aren't "realistic options" under the current trade chart that would not only be possible under the new one, but advantageous to both teams involved.

All that's changed is the price tag.

[HairOnFire]

Blah, blah, blah. And I can turn around an give you three example of potential trades at the top of round one that aren't "realistic options" under the current trade chart that would not only be possible under the new one, but advantageous to both teams involved.

All that's changed is the price tag.

Yeah, I'd say blah, blah, blah is right.

After all, you do realize that everytime you attempt to defend the needless limitations placed upon making trades at the end of the first round you do so by completely ignoring that issue, pointing instead to the improved ability to make trades at the top of the round.

When are you going to figure out that creating the exact same problems at the end of the round as you just solved at the top doesn't make any sense? Where's the logic in trading one problem for another, especially when it's in reality the exact same problem moved to a different location?

Bottom Line: It won't happen. Teams at the top of the round may adopt the new trading values since it's in their own best interest to do so and involves nothing more than their own willingness to take less than they were said to be entitled to under a system that no longer worked. But IMHO teams at the bottom of the 1st round are going to find themselves unable to force an inflated trade price upon teams who can't realistically afford to consider the new cost. Instead, those potential trade partners will point to the old value chart over and over again, and teams who want to trade out of the bottom of the 1st round will act in their own best interest by agreeing to the previous trade values over and over again until all talk of the 100-point bump fades from our memory.

[HoosierCat]

Yeah, I'd say blah, blah, blah is right.

After all, you do realize that everytime you attempt to defend the needless limitations placed upon making trades at the end of the first round you do so by completely ignoring that issue, pointing instead to the improved ability to make trades at the top of the round.

Bull. I've acknowledged the increased difficulty -- a.k.a. the higher price tag -- of trading at the end of the round created by the new chart. I believe that is more than offset by the improved ability to move around at the top of the round.

When are you going to figure out that creating the exact same problems at the end of the round as you just solved at the top doesn't make any sense?

It isn't creating the exact same problem. The value of the players and the money they are paid is vastly different at the top of round one than at the bottom. Being locked into the 28th pick may be a bummer, but it isn't going to cost you $60+ million on a guy who's never taken an NFL snap, like being locked into the No. 1 slot does.

[HairOnFire]

I've acknowledged the increased difficulty -- a.k.a. the higher price tag -- of trading at the end of the round created by the new chart. I believe that is more than offset by the improved ability to move around at the top of the round.

But you're making a problem where one doesn't currently exist. Why would anyone knowingly do that, especially when the types of trades being eliminated are amongst the most common in the draft? And again, the ability to improve a teams ability to trade out of the Top Ten has nothing to do with the 100-point bump that is needlessly placed at the end of the 1st round. In fact, all you have to do is reduce the point value of the top picks and the problem is solved....without creating another one somewhere else.

It isn't creating the exact same problem. The value of the players and the money they are paid is vastly different at the top of round one than at the bottom.

The money involved is less but the problem is exactly the same. Teams can't trade. Teams from the middle to late in the 1st round can't trade down, and most of the teams in the 2nd round can no longer trade up into the late 1st.

It's a stupid idea, and it won't happen.

[HoosierCat]

And again, the ability to improve a teams ability to trade out of the Top Ten has nothing to do with the 100-point bump that is needlessly placed at the end of the 1st round.

If Florio's to be believed, it isn't needless or arbitrary, but a reflection of a real difference in the length of a contract to which you can sign the 32nd pick versus the 33rd pick. The existing trade value chart doesn't take that into account at all. You want to argue the drop ought to be, say 25 or 50 points, fine. But there is real and non-trivial difference between the end of the first and start of the second.

The money involved is less but the problem is exactly the same.

No, the money is the problem. If the top picks didn't cost an arm and a leg to sign, we wouldn't be talking about this in the first place.

[HairOnFire]

If Florio's to be believed......

Well, that's sort of a sticking point for me. Anonymous sources, unnamed teams, and a shaky record of accuracy and honesty don't inspire confidence.

...it [the 100-point bump] isn't needless or arbitrary, but a reflection of a real difference in the length of a contract to which you can sign the 32nd pick versus the 33rd pick.

It is arbitrary. The previous trade value chart has been working just fine in all ways except at the very top of the 1st round. Furthermore, if the late 1st round picks are truly more valuable because of contract length then the teams who have them are already rewarded by the fact that they're more desirable to teams who want to trade up into the end of the 1st round. Under the new system those same types of trades are almost impossible...which to me doesn't smack of higher value.

The existing trade value chart doesn't take that into account at all.

Yet somehow the picks in question are amongst the most commonly traded. So where's the problem?

You want to argue the drop ought to be, say 25 or 50 points, fine. But there is real and non-trivial difference between the end of the first and start of the second.

The bump can't be so large that it cripples a teams ability to make trades, and that's what occurs when the difference between the 32nd and 33rd picks is equal to a very high 4th round draft pick.

[jjakq27]

"So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye.

There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys.

There's only you and me and we just disagree."

This musical interlude brought to you by Hair and Hoos'. Thanks guys.

For what it's worth, that chart was developed or refined by the Cowboys in the early 90's while they were assembling their title teams. Eventually it leaked out or was passed around as some of the Cowboys coaches moved on. I think it is pretty amazing that the chart has been in use for nearly 20 years.

[HoosierCat]

More from Florio...

EAGLES EMBRACE NEW TRADE CHART?

Posted by Mike Florio on April 17, 2008, 7:16 a.m.

When we got our mitts on the new draft trade chart that’s making the rounds in league circles, we were told that roughly eleven teams and counting are planning to use it as of 2008.

One of those teams apparently is the Philadelphia Eagles.

Earlier this week, Eagles president Joe Banner publicly commented on the revisions to the chart, which teams have been using since the 1990s.

“There is no question that the dynamic of the first round has changed very dramatically,” Banner said. “There is no question, in my mind at least, that the old system is no longer applicable for trades in the first round. The question is, do we have a viable replacement about which is a consensus that it makes sense?

“I don’t think there’s anybody who could intelligently argue that you don’t have to [use a new chart]. Even if you work off the old chart, but kind of adjust it in your head, the old chart does not make sense anymore with the economics of the guaranteed money in the first round.”

The new chart that has been developed by multiple teams is right here. Most of the changes appear in round one, with the first four picks shrinking in point value and the rest of the round-one selections increasing.